The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1887-08-11
Mr.. Davis Goes Wronp.

NO man can say aught against
JEFF. Davis without compromising
himself. His great name is safe in
history alongside the heroes and
patriots OF sll ages. 1t is a matter
Of bitter regret, however, that in the
twilight of brilliant and glorious
career he should jeopardize his
fame. 1t was not necessary for
him TO declare either for or against
prohibition. He has accomplished
greatness and could with utmost
complacency have rested on bis
laurels, and that he should SO IN
necessarily and cruelty entangle
himself and endanger his future
fame and risk dishonorable lmputa-
tions upon his name is strange in
deed and gives his friends and fol
lowers much solicitude. No man
dares say that he was hired. He is
as far above that as an archangel.
He is still wrestling with the old
states rights idea that was wrapt in
blood stained cerements and buried
alongside the hundred thousand
heroes who gave their lives for it
in vain. He is the last living ex-
ponent of 1t in its ultra sense and
be hangs on with relentless peril
nacity to it. He intends to die by
tit shall be his last utterance-
and while we admire his patriotism
and stand in awe of his greatness,
we regret that he makes it q pre-
text for taking position that will
do irreparable damage and ruin to
so many of his fellow citizens living
and their children to follow. Let
no man abate his love for this ven
cradle patriot, but let no man fol-
low him into error.
HIS argument is that the world is
governed too much and.that law
that attempts to restrain an indi-
vidual in his personal liberty is in
imical to democl acy. If his prem
Uses were sound his argument would
be unansWerable. He assumes that
prohibition Is a restraint upon q
mans liberty, when the fact is it is
only the withdrawal OF a license to
do wrong. The sale of whisky is
already hedged about by restraints
of all manner and kinds, and if
there were no other evidences of its
baneful effects, this fact alone
would be conclusive. 1t cannot be
said then--that a mans liberty is
abridged when the only thing you
do to him is to say you shall not
commit this wrong any longer"
Mr., Davis misapprehends the scope
of the prospcsed action. If the law
should assume TO say, "you shall
not drink whisky" then his argu-
meut might be tenable; but it
only says you shall not sell it"
and that does not abridge any mans
liberty to drink as much as he
pleases. 1t is neither debating what
he shall eat, drink nor wear, and
hence is not sumptuary, and hence
does not fail under the ban of dem
ocratic principle. That the world
is governed too much is trlte say
ing and was first uttered with re
spect to European governments. 1t
cannot be applied to democratic
government, because the people
govern themselves and they adj just
their own laws to suit their needs
and to protect themselves. THE
voice of the people is the voice of
God" which means that whatever
the people do as body is right as
applied to their own case. and they
cannot govern themselves too much
because whsteyer they do is
right (as to them) and if it
is not expedient they still have
power TO change it, and hence can
not wrong themselves.
1t is an absurdity to say that it
abridges a mans liberty to prohib-
it him from doing wrong.